[eklipse]

Well, have you?

I haven't.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well, have you?

I haven't.

Celine Dion..that's about it.

[lil'babykitten]

Give it some time, it's only been.....9 months....oh...hmm...

Haven't you been keeping track though? We went in to Liberate the Iraqis, it was a total humanitarian effort...

[Wiskedjak]

I found a cache of GI Joe hardware that I buried in my parents backyard 20 years ago and never declared ...

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Haven't you been keeping track though? We went in to Liberate the Iraqis, it was a total humanitarian effort...

You're right. Saddam should have been left in power to continue to rape, torture, and kill his people. He should have been allowed to lead by example, showing that flaunting UN resolutions meant absolutely nothing, and that dictators big and small could do the same.

Three cheers for keeping Saddam in power! The humanitarians unite!

Sarcasm aside, I too am troubled by the lack of WMD that have been found. I'm troubled, because it means either the WMD were hidden/moved out of Iraq, or they were indeed destroyed back in 1998, and our intelligence agencies (as well as many others world wide) were woefully, utterly wrong.

If we assume the former, then WMD are now scattered about the country, or scattered about neighboring countries. This is an extremely dangerous situation, one that we were attempting to prevent, not promote.

If we assume the latter, then intelligence agencies world-wide have lost more than a little bit of legitimacy. I find this situation to be very critical, and it needs to be investigated very completely.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by moki:
Sarcasm aside, I too am troubled by the lack of WMD that have been found. I'm troubled, because it means either the WMD were hidden/moved out of Iraq, or they were indeed destroyed back in 1998, and our intelligence agencies (as well as many others world wide) were woefully, utterly wrong.

If we assume the former, then WMD are now scattered about the country, or scattered about neighboring countries. This is an extremely dangerous situation, one that we were attempting to prevent, not promote.

If we assume the latter, then intelligence agencies world-wide have lost more than a little bit of legitimacy. I find this situation to be very critical, and it needs to be investigated very completely.

SADDAM SYMPATHIZER

[petehammer]

Originally posted by moki:
You're right. Saddam should have been left in power to continue to rape, torture, and kill his people. He should have been allowed to lead by example, showing that flaunting UN resolutions meant absolutely nothing, and that dictators big and small could do the same.

Way to dodge the point. Humanitarian reasons are NOW the reason that we went to Iraq, not the reason we were sold originally (weapons, threat, etc).

Tell me this, with all the murderous dictators in the world, why is the U.S.'s humanitarian effort focused soley on one country?

And using rape, torture, etc is your way of taking an argument off track. No one, of course, wants to have a brutal dictator in power. We are offended, however, that we were lied to get into this war. The ends do not justify the means.

[macvillage.net]

I'm pissed the president lied as a pretense for war... rather than just state the truth.

Pretty sad to think the President had to claim "weapons of mass distruction" to get the worlds #1 military power to take out such an evil guy, and free some oil reserves.

If the American people are that pathetic that it takes a president to lie like that to get public backing... damn.

[Spliffdaddy]

orig posted by petehammer

Way to dodge the point. Humanitarian reasons are NOW the reason that we went to Iraq, not the reason we were sold originally (weapons, threat, etc).

Tell me this, with all the murderous dictators in the world, why is the U.S.'s humanitarian effort focused soley on one country?

And using rape, torture, etc is your way of taking an argument off track. No one, of course, wants to have a brutal dictator in power. We are offended, however, that we were lied to get into this war. The ends do not justify the means.



huh?

so you WERE perfectly content to sit back and let a brutal dictator rape and murder the Iraqi population?

Hell. reckon we HAD to lie to you dolts before you'd willingly let somebody else(!) risk their lives to liberate them.

Try again.

And pull up your trousers.

Your disdain for America is showing.

[MacGorilla]

We've found more lies but no more WMDs.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
so you WERE perfectly content to sit back and let a brutal dictator rape and murder the Iraqi population?

Tell me something Spliff. If Bush had stood up last year and asked Congress to approve an invasion of Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, do you think Congress would have agreed?

[djjava]

There are about 9 candidates trying to get the Democratic nomination for president that I would call weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention the left wing media, probably the worst WMD of them all.

[stupendousman]

I haven't seen any.

I wonder why if they no longer exist (there where documented WOMD's and programs at the time of the Gulf War), why didn't Iraq simply show the documentation they agreed to provide in order to end the war and keep the US from removing Hussein years ago?

Either they are really stupid, or they were hiding something. We may never know the answer

[Troll]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Either they are really stupid, or they were hiding something. We may never know the answer

I was playing a gig in a dodgy area of Johannesburg one wintery night. Jo'burg is the most dangerous city in the world. As I carried my guitar amp back to the car parked 2 blocks away, I had a microphone in my hand in my pocket to keep warm. A guy popped out of the shadows and politely asked me to give him my amp and all my money. I looked at my hand, looked back at him, pushed my hand forward as if I had a gun in my pocket. He bolted.

Saddam was walking through the Middle East. Iran and Israel and Kuwait were lurking in the shadows.

Becoming any clearer?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Troll:
Tell me something Spliff. If Bush had stood up last year and asked Congress to approve an invasion of Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, do you think Congress would have agreed?

Actually, I think Democrats would have been more likely to jump on that bandwagon, a year ago, than Republicans.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think Democrats would have been more likely to jump on that bandwagon, a year ago, than Republicans.

yes, and that's the ironic thing about it.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

huh?

so you WERE perfectly content to sit back and let a brutal dictator rape and murder the Iraqi population?

Hell. reckon we HAD to lie to you dolts before you'd willingly let somebody else(!) risk their lives to liberate them.

Try again.

And pull up your trousers.

Your disdain for America is showing.

Two questions:
1) Why aren't we doing anything about other brutal dictators?
and
2) Why do you like being lied to?

Keep the personal attacks to yourself, they make your argument personal and lessen the overall impact.

I love my country enough not to let someone lie to it. The ends do not justify the means.

[Powerbook]

"Got WMD?
Then you are an Iraqi and must be killed."

(inspired from Futurama)
PB.

[thunderous_funker]

Recap of the thread so far:

Q: Found WMD yet?

Anti-Bush answer: No. We were lied to.

Bushite answer: No, but it doesn't matter. And all you people that we called "anti-security" for not believing in WMD we now call "saddam supporters" for not buying into the bogus attempt to justify a 2003 war with 15-10 year old war crimes in which previous US administrations (that we also supported) were complicit.


Same old shyt, different decade.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Troll:
I was playing a gig in a dodgy area of Johannesburg one wintery night. Jo'burg is the most dangerous city in the world. As I carried my guitar amp back to the car parked 2 blocks away, I had a microphone in my hand in my pocket to keep warm. A guy popped out of the shadows and politely asked me to give him my amp and all my money. I looked at my hand, looked back at him, pushed my hand forward as if I had a gun in my pocket. He bolted.

Yeah....but....can you prove that you disposed of the microphone?

......I mean we know you had a microphone....

....and you threatened to use the microphone.....

.....you already used the microphone before that night......

.......we know you can have that microphone ready to use again within 45 minutes....

Troll, you must leave your home within 48 hours. Your refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of my choosing - MMWHHAHHAHHAA!!!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Two questions:
1) Why aren't we doing anything about other brutal dictators?
and
2) Why do you like being lied to?

Keep the personal attacks to yourself, they make your argument personal and lessen the overall impact.

I love my country enough not to let someone lie to it. The ends do not justify the means.

We don't invade other countries because there is nothing to gain. Iraq has a great oil supply, and it just sits, while our economy cries for it.

If it was for humanitarian purposes, we would be in Central Africa where hundreds of thousands die anually. A much more drastic situation... which Bush has made clear doesn't matter.

2. Because it's a conservative republican lying for his own personal political gain... it's the norm, and accepted.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Recap of the thread so far:

Q: Found WMD yet?

Anti-Bush answer: No. We were lied to.

Bushite answer: No, but it doesn't matter. And all you people that we called "anti-security" for not believing in WMD we now call "saddam supporters" for not buying into the bogus attempt to justify a 2003 war with 15-10 year old war crimes in which previous US administrations (that we also supported) were complicit.


Same old shyt, different decade.

Bush wasn't lied to... he lied.


If Bush treated the government like a business, and was subject to rules *he himself backed*, as CEO, he's responsible for misstatements... not his people. It's up to him to ensure the integrety.

But then again. His name is George "Double [speak]" Bush.

[Simon X]

Originally posted by moki:
He should have been allowed to lead by example, showing that flaunting UN resolutions meant absolutely nothing, and that dictators big and small could do the same.

Right, and those other countries flaunting UN resolutions for now on decades are being dealt with when? Yeh, I know, you can't help everyone.

Sarcasm aside, I too am troubled by the lack of WMD that have been found. I'm troubled, because it means either the WMD were hidden/moved out of Iraq, or they were indeed destroyed back in 1998, and our intelligence agencies (as well as many others world wide) were woefully, utterly wrong.

If we assume the former, then WMD are now scattered about the country, or scattered about neighboring countries. This is an extremely dangerous situation, one that we were attempting to prevent, not promote.

If we assume the latter, then intelligence agencies world-wide have lost more than a little bit of legitimacy. I find this situation to be very critical, and it needs to be investigated very completely.

Interesting. You don't think there may have been a third reason? Lies, damn lies.

[adamk]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Well, have you?

I haven't.

U.S. intelligence consensus: Iraqi WMD shipped to Syria
from worldtribune.com

i heard something about WMD and syria the other day on the radio while waking up. i did a search later that day on NPR (which i was listening to while waking) and didn't find a related story. this is the only story that i could find about it. the main guy, clapper, claims that some of the weapons may have been moved to syria prior/during the war based on the fact that trucks (with no way of knowing what was inside) were heading that way.

i was going to post the story earlier this week, but decided against it since it didn't seem too solid a case and there were no WMD threads on the first page of the Politics Forum. it seems that more pressure is being put on syria recently:

Bush Administration Hardens Policy Toward Syria
and
Bremer: al-Qaeda mostly infiltrating Iraq through Syria

though the above article contradicts this earlier one:

US commanders: Claims about illegal infiltration from Syria to Iraq - ''unfounded''

though the differences are reconcilable. Bremer knows that a Syrian attempted to carry out a suicide attack, therefore, he must have entered across the border (though not necessarily). the latter states that no significant amount of al-qaeda have crossed, which isn't to say none have.

anyway, syria might be the focus for further WMD hunting/liberations???

adam

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bush wasn't lied to... he lied.

Please tell us then how Iraq WAS in compliance with the US/UN mandate that they agreed to (per the end of the Gulf War) in regards to documenting the destruction of their known WOMD?

Where DID the WOMD that they were known to have, that were documented during the time of the Gulf War, go?

Good luck with an answer. Even Saddam and his people refused to answer those questions. How any possible lie Bush could have told (unless Iraq did provide the documentation and he lied about it...but even the UN admits that they did not) could change the fact that Iraq refused to comply with the mandates it agreed to, in order to keep Saddam in power at the end of the Gulf War, is beyond me. It's nothing but a political smokescreen used to attack someone who actually did something more than just shake his head and nod as Iraq made their own rules, and turned the UN into laughingstocks. The fact that Saddam was a brutal tyrant who used WOMD on his own people, only made it easier to give him what he truely deserved.

Mr. UN: No..seriously Saddam...we REALLY mean it this time....if you don't comply with the UN mandates, you're really really really going to get us angry this time. We might even hold our breath until we turn blue!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by adamk:
anyway, syria might be the focus for further WMD hunting/liberations???

I would imagine that said hunting/liberating will be a key part of Bush's reelection campaign - solid case or no.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Please tell us then how Iraq WAS in compliance with the US/UN mandate that they agreed to (per the end of the Gulf War) in regards to documenting the destruction of their known WOMD?

Where DID the WOMD that they were known to have, that were documented during the time of the Gulf War, go?

Good luck with an answer. Even Saddam and his people refused to answer those questions. How any possible lie Bush could have told (unless Iraq did provide the documentation and he lied about it...but even the UN admits that they did not) could change the fact that Iraq refused to comply with the mandates it agreed to, in order to keep Saddam in power at the end of the Gulf War, is beyond me. It's nothing but a political smokescreen used to attack someone who actually did something more than just shake his head and nod as Iraq made their own rules, and turned the UN into laughingstocks. The fact that Saddam was a brutal tyrant who used WOMD on his own people, only made it easier to give him what he truely deserved.

Mr. UN: No..seriously Saddam...we REALLY mean it this time....if you don't comply with the UN mandates, you're really really really going to get us angry this time. We might even hold our breath until we turn blue!

Bush claimed direct knowledge of an iminent threat.

As of yet, nobody has been able to show any evidence that such a threat existed since the end of the Gulf War.

Bush claims he was "misinformed".

Regardless of what happened to those weapons... Bush intentionally used bogus data, and lied to the entire nation, under oath. That's the issue.

[jbartone]

What happened to that 10,000 page document Iraq handed over to the UN?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by jbartone:
What happened to that 10,000 page document Iraw handed over to the UN?

They printed the manuals for Panther on it

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Bush claimed direct knowledge of an iminent threat.

As of yet, nobody has been able to show any evidence that such a threat existed since the end of the Gulf War.

Bush claims he was "misinformed".

Regardless of what happened to those weapons... Bush intentionally used bogus data, and lied to the entire nation, under oath. That's the issue.

Bush claims he was "misinformed", you claim he lied. All concerning a situation which wasn't pertinent to whether Iraq had complied with the UN mandates, and if they did not, seeing to it that those who refused were removed from power as they would have been had they never agreed to the mandates in the first place.

The fact remains that there was no reason to lie, because Iraq had not complied with the agreement that allowed Saddam to stay in power. Personally, Bush could say that he was removing Saddam because fairies visited him in his dreams, and told him it would be a nifty idea, and it wouldn't matter much to me. The facts are, Iraq refused to comply, and those in power where removed. You can debate side issues all you want, but it won't change the facts.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ utterly brilliant reasoning on display right there.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Bush claims he was "misinformed", you claim he lied. All concerning a situation which wasn't pertinent to whether Iraq had complied with the UN mandates, and if they did not, seeing to it that those who refused were removed from power as they would have been had they never agreed to the mandates in the first place.

The fact remains that there was no reason to lie, because Iraq had not complied with the agreement that allowed Saddam to stay in power. Personally, Bush could say that he was removing Saddam because fairies visited him in his dreams, and told him it would be a nifty idea, and it wouldn't matter much to me. The facts are, Iraq refused to comply, and those in power where removed. You can debate side issues all you want, but it won't change the facts.

So if the proper pretense was there...

Why did the president lie (which as we all know is a punishable offense as president) under oath? He gave false unverified information, and told the American people is was a fact. That's a strait up lie.

The President lied under oath. He claimed fact where there was none.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
So if the proper pretense was there...

Are you refuting that Iraq was not in compliance with the UN/US mandates that they agreed to, which required them to document the destruction of their WOMD and programs? Because unless you are, any further speculation is simply worrying about a moot point.

Why did the president lie (which as we all know is a punishable offense as president) under oath? He gave false unverified information, and told the American people is was a fact. That's a strait up lie.

The President lied under oath. He claimed fact where there was none.

It appears that you are claiming "fact" where there is none. Why are you lying to us?

Regardless, your opinion is noted.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Are you refuting that Iraq was not in compliance with the UN/US mandates that they agreed to, which required them to document the destruction of their WOMD and programs? Because unless you are, any further speculation is simply worrying about a moot point.



It appears that you are claiming "fact" where there is none. Why are you lying to us?

Regardless, your opinion is noted.

I never said that Iraq was compliant (or not).... it's completely irrelevent to the conversatoin.

The fact is... Bush claimed direct knowledge of such weapons... when he didn't have such evidence... hence he lied to the Americna people during his term (under oath) as president. A crime.

Iraq is just a noun in this discussion. Their guilt/innocence has nothing to do with it. This is about the president lying, and not having the evidence he claimed to have..

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I never said that Iraq was compliant (or not).... it's completely irrelevent to the conversatoin.

The fact is... Bush claimed direct knowledge of such weapons... when he didn't have such evidence... hence he lied to the Americna people during his term (under oath) as president. A crime.

Iraq is just a noun in this discussion. Their guilt/innocence has nothing to do with it. This is about the president lying, and not having the evidence he claimed to have..

Wow...I thought this was about where the WOMD's are. The only person able to answer where the WOMD that where documented to have been in Iraq at the time of the Gulf War, was Iraq, and they refused to do so. Any discussion as to whether or not there are currently WOMD is what is irrelevant if someone is trying to claim there was no justification for removing those in power.

NOW, if you want to start a new thread concerning your opinion that Bush lied, you're free to do so. Be sure to directly quote him where he specfically said that he personally had direct knowledge of WOMD still in Iraq, undeniable evidence that there where no WOMD at the time the President made the statement (or reason to believe that there were), and the evidence that the President knew about this at the time he made the speech (all required to prove your theory). GOOD LUCK... if the Democrats had factual evidence which shows beyond a resonable doubt Bush did this, they'd be harping on that instead of beating the CIA leak dead horse. And besides, it's not like he decided to bomb an aspirin factory just to get a sexual harassment lawsuit off that day's headlines.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
besides, it's not like he decided to bomb an aspirin factory just to get a sexual harassment lawsuit off that day's headlines.

Wow, that is the most innaccurate, slander-filled thing I've ever read. Congrats!

Sexual harassment? Are you high?

Damn liberal media for covering Bill Clinton's sex life and making him bomb other countries. What were you thinking?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Wow, that is the most innaccurate, slander-filled thing I've ever read. Congrats!

...you forgot the part about my being able to devour a human baby in a single bite.

Damn liberal media for covering Bill Clinton's sex life and making him bomb other countries. What were you thinking?

I was thinking that it wasn't smart to bomb an aspirin factory on the day the "big news" story was going to be a deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the President. Whether it was the case or not, it comes off as a supreme "wag the dog". Then again, Bill Clinton's strong point never was good judgement when it came to things which might make him look really bad.

ps. If it's in writing, it's "libel", not slander.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I was thinking that it wasn't smart to bomb an aspirin factory on the day the "big news" story was going to be a deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the President.

Two things: what sexual harassment lawsuit? Could you clarify?

And, he hasn't been president for a while, why do you still hate him?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
NOW, if you want to start a new thread concerning your opinion that Bush lied, you're free to do so. Be sure to directly quote him where he specfically said that he personally had direct knowledge of WOMD still in Iraq, undeniable evidence that there where no WOMD at the time the President made the statement (or reason to believe that there were), and the evidence that the President knew about this at the time he made the speech (all required to prove your theory). GOOD LUCK... if the Democrats had factual evidence which shows beyond a resonable doubt Bush did this, they'd be harping on that instead of beating the CIA leak dead horse. And besides, it's not like he decided to bomb an aspirin factory just to get a sexual harassment lawsuit off that day's headlines.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

Vice President Cheney, August 26, 2002

"No doubt," he said, even though there was plenty of doubt. Whether one calls it an exaggeration or a lie doesn't much matter to me, I only know that, along with a lot of other statements made by the administration, it wasn't true, or at least it wasn't the whole truth (I could offer more quotes from the President and others, this one was just the easiest). And we now know that the administration deliberately cherry-picked the intelligence that supported its rhetoric and ignored the rest. I didn't oppose the invasion for my own reasons, but neither do I pretend that the administration acted honestly or even prudently. That Saddam was in violation did not, in and of itself, require us to conduct a full-scale invasion of Iraq at that particular time.

As for Clinton, his bombing campaign lasted 4 days (as I recall) and was also done in concert with the British under Prime Minister Blair. It's been reported that, according to some Iraqi officials and scientists, this effectively put an end to whatever weapons programs remained after the Gulf War.

There's a big difference between a bombing strike and a full-scale invasion/occupation. If you're going to do the latter, you'd damn well better have all of your ducks in a row. It doesn't appear that this was the case for the Bush administration. That they engaged in deception only adds insult to injury. Let's hope they get it worked out.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Two things: what sexual harassment lawsuit? Could you clarify?

And, he hasn't been president for a while, why do you still hate him?

a. Sorry. I had my Clinton screw-ups mixed up. It was shortly around the time of his deposition in regards to the Lewinsky matter. We later agreed to pay for the damage. Again, I apologize for confusing Clinton's many embarassing lacks of good judgement. The sexual harassment suit brought against him only by Paula Jones was peripherally related in hindsight.

b. I don't hate Clinton. I don't even think he was a "bad President". Just a terrible "leader". After 1996, he was actually fairly moderate and I give him credit for not doing things to stand in the way of the economy when others in his party would have liked to try to further raise taxes on things like the internet. Of course most of what he did was in per the direction of Dick Morris, in order to maintain his poll numbers (not necessarily because it had anything to do with his "core values"), so that's one of the reasons I don't look kindly on his "leadership" abibilites.

Except for people like Adolf HItler, I really don't get too emotional concerning elected officials. I've got way too many other things to deal with than to spend time hating politicians.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"No doubt," he said, even though there was plenty of doubt.

"He" in this instance is Dick Cheney (not Bush, "under oath"), and while YOU may have had plenty of doubt, you've not shown any evidence to prove that Mr. Cheney DID. That is the burden you are under when you accuse someone of lying.

As for Clinton, his bombing campaign lasted 4 days (as I recall) and was also done in concert with the British under Prime Minister Blair. It's been reported that, according to some Iraqi officials and scientists, this effectively put an end to whatever weapons programs remained after the Gulf War.

They bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory. Killed several innocent people. We settled a lawsuit concerning the matter with the owner of the facility because there was no evidence that it had ever been involved in ANY weapons programs. We paid for all the damages. If you have evidence that the targets where in fact used for weapons programs, I'd love to see it. The Clinton administration wasn't able to produce any after the fact.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
They bombed an aspirin factory. Killed several innocent people. We settled a lawsuit concerning the matter with the owner of the facility because there was no evidence that it had ever been involved in ANY weapons programs. We paid for all the damages. If you have evidence that the targets where in fact used for weapons programs, I'd love to see it. The Clinton administration wasn't able to produce any after the fact.

It's a good thing that Bush's war didn't result in any civilian casulties in Iraq or the destruction of non-military targets or else your argument could be torn to shreds.

Phew!

I mean, imagine if thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by Bush's action! Then all your "Clinton bad man" talk might crumble and fall apart!

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by petehammer:
It's a good thing that Bush's war didn't result in any civilian casulties in Iraq or the destruction of non-military targets or else your argument could be torn to shreds.

Phew!

I mean, imagine if thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed by Bush's action! Then all your "Clinton bad man" talk might crumble and fall apart!

You are comparing apples to oranges. No one involved with the Sudanese aspirin factory was worthy of being targeted, therefore there was no acceptable "collateral damage". The civilians died for what? So that no more evil aspirins will fall into the hands of the Sudanese?

On the other hand, there was no debate as to whether Iraq had refused to comply with the mandates it agreed to in order to keep Saddam in power. Any civilian casualities that occured were an unintended side effect that occured due to the removal of a ruthless dictator who terrorized his own people, and tried to forceably overtake another sovereign county.

Ruthless dictator who poisoned his own people.... / .... aspirin factory. I don't see a rational comparison, really.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
"He" in this instance is Dick Cheney (not Bush, "under oath"), and while YOU may have had plenty of doubt, you've not shown any evidence to prove that Mr. Cheney DID. That is the burden you are under when you accuse someone of lying.

Like I said, one man's "exaggeration" is another man's "lying" is another man's "spin" is another man's "rhetoric" etc. (I'm not sure what being under oath has to do with it - you don't have to be under oath to engage in a deception). The terminology doesn't really concern me, and I even expect and tolerate a degree of exaggeration/spin from elected officials. As for who said what, like I said, Cheney's speech is just one example - are you saying that he didn't represent the administration's views at the time? Are you saying that despite all that we now know, there's no reason to believe that the administration cherry-picked the intelligence? It seems self-evident and common sensical to me, but there's plenty of evidence. I never heard Cheney or Bush say "Well, we have conflicting intelligence reports, but we're going in anyway."

I said when this all started that I could support the action in principle even if I felt that the administration was exaggerating the urgency of the WMD threat. What I didn't expect was (a) the degree to which they were spinning, and (b) the inadequacy of the rest of the intelligence and planning. I thought that they at least had a solid understanding of what they were getting us into, but there's reason to believe that they didn't. This takes us from the realm of mere spin and into the realm of incompetence. I continue to hope that my fears are misplaced.

They bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory. Killed several innocent people. We settled a lawsuit concerning the matter with the owner of the facility because there was no evidence that it had ever been involved in ANY weapons programs. We paid for all the damages. If you have evidence that the targets where in fact used for weapons programs, I'd love to see it. The Clinton administration wasn't able to produce any after the fact.

I recognize that. I also allow for the fact that the Bush administration will make errors - that's in the nature of things. But again, there's a difference between a bombing strike and an invasion/occupation - IMO, when you decide on the latter, which is far more serious, you'd better have your ducks in a row. My beef with the administration is not so much its intentions or even its spin, it's with the inadequate planning accompanied by inadequate intelligence accompanied by clumsy diplomacy accompanied by spin and perhaps even outright deception. It has added up poorly. Again, however, I hope they prove me wrong. I'm not in this to bash Bush, I'm in this because I want us to follow sound and effective policies.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
On the other hand, there was no debate as to whether Iraq had refused to comply with the mandates it agreed to in order to keep Saddam in power.

True. But there was debate as to the urgency of the threat posed by Saddam and the need to invade at that particular time without a broader coalition.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zigzag:
True. But there was debate as to the urgency of the threat posed by Saddam and the need to invade at that particular time without a broader coalition.

Not much. It was the "broader coalition" who debated it. According to polls, most of the US had already made up it's mind and a majority of those in Congress were ready to support removal of Saddam based on his refusal to comply with the UN/US mandates it agreed to.

They had justification based on Iraq's refusal to comply, and the support of the majority of the United States. There was no real need to "lie".

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Not much. It was the "broader coalition" who debated it. According to polls, most of the US had already made up it's mind and a majority of those in Congress were ready to support removal of Saddam based on his refusal to comply with the UN/US mandates it agreed to.

They had justification based on Iraq's refusal to comply, and the support of the majority of the United States. There was no real need to "lie".

This "support" came from a public who largely believed that a) Iraq participated in the Sept. 11 attacks, that b) Hussein had tangible ties with Al-Queda, and c) that Hussein's supposedly formidable arsenal was such a threat to the US that it had to be destroyed immediately.

If the word "lie" is too harsh for you, perhaps "deceive by implication" will suffice.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Not much. It was the "broader coalition" who debated it. According to polls, most of the US had already made up it's mind and a majority of those in Congress were ready to support removal of Saddam based on his refusal to comply with the UN/US mandates it agreed to.

They had justification based on Iraq's refusal to comply, and the support of the majority of the United States. There was no real need to "lie".

Respectfully, I don't think that's an accurate reading. I don't think the public is that sophisticated - it was mostly responding to the WMD/terrorism rhetoric, not to legal formalities. Ask the average person about UN mandates and you'll draw a blank. The administration had to sell the idea of an invasion and as Wolfowitz himself admitted, WMD was the easiest way to do that.

There was debate, the administration was just very good at deflecting it with statements like "There is no doubt . . . ," even though our own intelligence people had genuine doubts.

Look, I'm a realist. Politicians fudge facts every day, they have to, and Bush is no different. That gets overlooked if their policies work. The question before us is whether this particular venture will work. If it doesn't, the spin will be harder to overlook.

[Sherwin]

Questions:

• Do we really think that the intelligence services were wrong? (and remember, it wasn't just the CIA but our guys too - we've had guys in there since the end of the first gulf war).

• Do we really think that Bush would knowingly lie to the electorate whilst knowing that he's got another term to win?

• Do we really think that Saddam didn't have WMDs, knowing what a pleasant guy he was/is?

?

[scoxx]

Are logical fallacies sign of lacking intelligence or dishonesty?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by scoxx:
Are logical fallacies sign of lacking intelligence or dishonesty?

And is either of those excusable in the "most powerful" administration in the world?

-s*